>
> On Nov 20, 2004, at 12:04 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, after a couple of weeks, I think we've hammered out a
>>> reasonable implementation of locks in BDB. Huge thanks to striker
>>> and cmpilato (and brane, for preventing us from going down a bad road!)
>>>
>>> The locking branch compiles now, and you can play with the BDB
>>> repository locks using the three new 'svnadmin' commands. I'm gonna
>>> start writing some new fs-tests (the C tests) to check that locks
>>> are being properly enforced during write operations, both on-the-fly
>>> and at final commit time. The fsfs implementation of locks will be
>>> able to use the same tests too.
>>
>>
>> We should really break down fs-tests into general, BDB-specific and
>> FSFS-specific tests, then make it understand the --fs-type option.
>> Right now I believe we still test BDB more rigorously than FSFS in
>> the unit tests.
>>
>
> That would directly contradict the instructions in
> subversion/tests/README. That doc seems to be talking about testing
> public APIs, and *not* writing tests for implementation details.

What about skel-tests, then? They're a BDB implementation detail.

> Is that doc just out-of-date? Do we have any existing fs-tests that
> are BDB-specific or FSFS-specific? I don't think we do... I think
> it's all public APIs. Has FSFS never been run through fs-tests.c? It
> should work.

I don't see how. Last I saw, it didn't parse the --fs-type option, so it
always uses the default -- which is BDB.

We only have tests for libsvn_fs_base, which is pretty BDB-centric. We
really should refactor those tests.